Saturday, July 31, 2010
More than 80 percent of jobs are provided by the private sector. Those are the jobs that put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and send our children to college.
Our small businesses generate 65 percent of the new jobs.
In Nebraska, we like to call them our Mom and Pop enterprises.
These are really good people who don’t want to get caught-up in a political debate.
They want to get up in the morning, head to work and find creative ways to build their businesses.
And your policies, Mr. President, are hurting them.
Let me give you an example: embedded in your health care law – under Section 9006 – is a job-crushing provision.
It affects every business, every church and charity; every state and local government.
It requires all of them to track their purchases and when they hit $600 with any vendor in a year – for any services or supplies – your health care law requires them to file a 10-99 form with the IRS and with that vendor.
This will create a mountain of new paperwork – increasing it by as much as 2,000 percent, according to one study.
One small business owner in Nebraska did an analysis and came to the conclusion it will cost his business an extra $15 thousand dollars a year.
Now that may not sound like much here in Washington, but to a small business in Nebraska, that would go a long way to putting another American to work.
Instead, that money will pay for paperwork… and for what purpose, Mr. President?
Even the National Taxpayer Advocate – a division of the IRS itself – predicts there will be little benefit and a mess of erroneous tax penalties.
This foolish policy hammers our business community when we should be supporting their job growth.
It’s only one example of how the Administration’s promise to support small businesses really rings hollow.
Then there’s the employer mandate in the health care law, which studies confirm will divert money from wages.
It forces employers to provide government-approved coverage or pay a tax of $2,000 per employee.
Another example: the new Medicare tax.
The majority of small businesses pay taxes at the individual level, so this new $210 billion tax will hurt; hitting businesses that employ between 20 and 200 workers especially hard.
And that’s one-quarter of our workforce.
To put it simply; your actions thus far, Mr. President, don’t encourage small businesses to hire employees.
You’re signaling to the business owners that they best be very cautious, not only because of the flurry of new taxes and regulations, but also because a national energy tax is next on your agenda.
It's time to stop pushing anti-growth policies and start supporting a real job growth agenda.
After all, what matters most is what we actually do, not what we say.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
“I strongly opposed that bill. But I commend its authors for one thing: in drafting and passing BCRA, they made every effort to ensure that everybody would have to play by the same rules — rules, moreover, that would not take effect in the middle of an election year. They wanted to make sure there was no appearance of giving one party a partisan advantage. And in that, they succeeded.
“Now fast forward to today. Late last week, Democrat leaders decided to take us off the Small Business bill to move to the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that is the mirror opposite of BCRA in the partisan way it was drafted and in the partisan way it’s being pushed ahead of an election.
“Let’s be perfectly clear: this bill is not what its supporters say it is. It is not an effort to promote transparency. It is not a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United — which has now been the law of the land for seven months and which, contrary to the breathless warnings of some, has not caused the world to stop turning on its axis.
“This bill is a partisan effort, pure and simple, drafted behind closed doors by current and former Democrat campaign committee leaders, and it’s aimed at one thing and one thing only: this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of November.
“The supporters of this bill say it’s about transparency. To that, I say it’s transparent alright. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections. And they’re so intent on their goal that they’re willing to launch an all-out assault on the First Amendment in order to get there.
“Democrats achieved something truly remarkable in drafting this bill. They united the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce — both in opposition. Why? Because it’s as obvious to these groups as it is to me that the DISCLOSE Act is a clear violation of the right to free speech.
“And as usual with Democrats in this Congress, the process hasn’t been any better than the substance. Over in the House, the Democrats’ campaign committee chairman sprung a rewrite of substantial portions that Republicans and even Democrats hadn’t seen shortly before this bill was voted on. Not to be outdone, Democrats here in the Senate introduced a version last week that had been substantially rewritten since it was first introduced in April. In other words, the original Senate version was replaced under a veil of secrecy late last week, and that’s the one Democrat leaders want us to vote on today.
“A massive rewrite of the laws that govern elections and Democrats want to give six full days between introduction and a vote. A massive re-write of the nation’s campaign finance laws without hearings, without testimony, without studies, without a markup. Another bill produced without a single hearing and placed directly on the calendar to bypass even the Rules Committee, which is supposed to have jurisdiction over this issue. A bill written behind closed doors with the help of lobbyists and special interests. All of this — in the name of transparency! Forget the DISCLOSE Act, Mr. President. What we really need is a “Transparency in Legislating about Elections Act.”
“This approach to this bill couldn’t be more different than BCRA. However much I disagreed with that bill, it treated all groups, corporations, unions, parties and individuals the same. From the ban on party non-federal dollars to advertisement limitations within proximity of an election, BCRA’s restrictions and prohibitions were applied evenly. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite: 117 pages of stealth negotiations in which Democrats pick winners and losers, either through outright prohibitions or restrictions so complex that they end up achieving the same result.
“The unions don’t need a carve-out because they got exemptions. The new law applies to government contractors, but not their unions or unions with government contracts. It doesn’t apply to government unions. It applies to domestic subsidiaries, but not to their unions or international unions. Through threshold and transfer exemptions, unions are the ultimate victors under this bill.
I would note that numerous attempts were made to provide parity in the House Administration Committee mark-up — all were defeated on a partisan basis with no credible explanation. And this is what they’re calling transparency.
“In their efforts to pass this partisan bill ahead of the election, Democrats have been forced to do the same kind of horse-trading we saw in the health care debate. Some of the deals they struck were aimed at attracting special interest support, while others were aimed at quelling special interest opposition. In the end, they came up with a bizarre carve-out construct that grants full First Amendment freedoms to the chosen ones. And the results aren’t any prettier than the health care bill.
“Follow this logic: The exemption applies to 501c4s, with 500,000 members in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico and DC, in existence for 10 years who receive less than 15% of their money from corporations or labor unions. In case you don’t know who this provision is aimed at, it’s a carve-out for the NRA — as well as the AARP and the Humane Society, among unknown others, but not to groups like AIPAC or groups formed to advocate for victims of the oil spill or Hurricane Katrina. So if you have 400,000 members, sit down and shut up. If you were founded in 2002, nice try, sit down. If you don’t have the ability to recruit members in every state, zip it. These are the contortions the authors of this bill had to go through to get it this far.
“Worse still, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that its provisions shall take effect without regard to whether or not the Federal Election Commission has promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments. This, of course, will have the practical effect of paralyzing those who want to participate in the political process. If they don’t know what the rules are, they’ll take themselves out of the game, which is clearly what the authors of this bill want.
“Let me ask a question. All these new reporting obligations, filing requirements, certification mandates and transfer burdens are to occur, how? Are there magic forms out there we don’t know about? Do folks write emails to the FEC, FCC or SEC? Maybe we bring back telegrams or use a Harry Potter Owl or the Pony Express? Under threat of criminal sanctions, this provision is a clear message from the Justice Department to anyone covered by the new restrictions in this bill: go ahead and speak, make my day.
“Lastly, Mr. President, recognizing the important constitutional questions at issue with BCRA, an expedited judicial review provision was included in that bill. Not so with this one. In order to make sure this bill isn’t held up by something as inconvenient as a challenge on first amendment grounds, its authors have made sure no court action interferes with their new restrictions this election cycle and maybe next. They add multiple layers of review.
“No provision addressing an appeal to the Supreme Court. No time limits for filing, and no Congressional direction to the courts to expedite. Again the goal of the proponents of this speech rights reduction act is clear: slow the process and secure new rules that help incumbent Democrats for the upcoming elections, and for the foreseeable future.
“Their one goal here is to get people who would criticize them to stop talking about what Democrats have been doing here in Washington over the past year and a half.
“The authors of the bill labored behind closed doors to decide who would retain the right to speak; In direct defiance of what the Supreme Court made clear this past January, when Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, `[W]e find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.’
“That is precisely what the Disclose Act does. It imposes restrictions on speech. And I would note that the one category of speakers upon whom the so-called reformers have bestowed the greatest speech rights in this bill are corporations that own media outlets. So a company that owns a TV network, newspaper or blog can say what they want, when they want, as often as they want.
“BCRA was debated over the course of many years. Its authors also recognized the importance of not changing the rules on the eve of an election, which is why the legislation went into effect the day after the 2002 midterm elections. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite. Seeking to achieve exactly what BCRA avoided, this legislation has an effective date of 30 days after enactment. If it weren’t already obvious that this bill is a partisan exercise, the effective date should be proof positive.
“And those, Mr. President, are the facts.
“Now, I must admit it’s been a few years since I was in law school. So after I learned about all these special deals, I went back to the First Amendment to look for an asterisk or something indicating that only large entrenched and wealthy special interests get the `freedom of speech’.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
“Let Let me start by asking you to cast your minds back to January 2009. President Obama was being sworn in as President. Democrats were flying high. And the American people were eager to see their plan for addressing the nation’s problems. Hope was famously in the air. Meanwhile, Republicans were portrayed as beaten down, demoralized, and despondent. We were more likely to be a late night punch line than a relevant part of Obama’s Washington. I'm sure you all remember it well. But something happened on the way to the political graveyard. The Democrats actually had to govern.
Along the way, pundits in Washington were stunned to find out that ordinary Americans, like you in this room, were rising up all over the country. And those Republicans in Washington — the ones who were supposed to be beaten down, demoralized, and despondent — well, we were listening. We shared your frustration. And we girded for the fight, confident that we had supporters behind us. We broke out of the Washington echo chamber and fought the government-driven solutions that Democrats were proposing. We got our groove back.
The cracks in the Democrats’ foundation continued to spread. And today, just a year and a half after Democrats took over, confident that Washington bureaucrats had the answers to our problems, virtually every survey you look at shows that Americans have lost faith in the Democrat leadership and in government period. As it turns out, when your entire pitch to the American people is that government will solve your problems, people get upset when government can’t deliver. That’s one reason Democrats are so unpopular right now. It’s why Republicans are on a comeback. And we got there by listening, rather than talking.
But this isn’t about a political horse race. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that Americans don’t particularly care about who’s up and who’s down, as long as the people they elect put the interests of their constituents and the interests of the country first. So this isn’t about who’s on top. It’s about following through on the kinds of changes Americans want to see. It’s about reversing the damage Democrats have done. It’s about solving the crises in front of us. And those crises should be plain enough for anybody to see.
It’s not that the Democrats haven’t been busy. They’ve been busier than ever. But rather than being busy addressing the crises in front of them, they’ve all adopted Rahm Emanuel’s 7-word manifesto for governance: ‘Never let a crisis go to waste.’
For nearly three months, we’ve needed to fix a broken pipe at the bottom of the Gulf. And what we got instead was a proposal from the President for another plank in the far-left agenda — a radical, far-reaching scheme to impose a new national energy tax on every American.
On issue after issue, the administration’s solutions to our problems have only made our problems worse. And yet they still crave more power, more of your tax dollars, more responsibility. Well, Americans are tired of politicians who promise one thing and deliver another. Let’s start with competence.
What Republicans are offering the American people is a pledge, a pledge to do everything in our power to restore government to a size and scope that leads to some semblance of competency. We’re not going to tell you that if you vote Republican you’re going to wake-up in your dream home with a brand new Corvette outside ready to take you to the best job in the world. You know why? Because government can’t deliver that promise.”
The politics of personal destruction is always the last gasp of a politician on the ropes. That’s why you can’t pick up a newspaper these days without reading about some Democrat trying to convince people that their opponent is a crazy person. We’re not crazy — a $13 trillion debt is crazy.”
Have confidence. Hold your heads high. Work your tails off. Speak up. And when it is all said and done I promise you, we’ll be listening.”
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
- Mongiardo lost the primary in a close race, by approximately one vote per precinct.
- Mongiardo's campaign is roughly $70,000 in debt.
- Mongiardo threatened to call for a recanvass of the vote.
- Mongiardo's and Conway's staffs met.
- Hours later, Mongiardo changes his mind about requesting a recount.
- Mongiardo says Conway promised to help retire his debt.
- Conway refuses to pay Mongiardo's debt.
- Conway still lacks Mongiardo's endorsement.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
- President Barack Obama took 495 days to nominate Berwick, and
- For the next 79 days, Democrats refused to hold a hearing for him.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Learn to talk like William F. Buckley. A comfortable prejudice for American atheists is that religious believers all speak with a heavy Southern accent and use small words.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
This tax is one of the most egregious and vile federal taxes, and any attempt to reinstate it should be stopped. Rand Paul has signed a formal pledge offered by the American Family Business Institute to keep the Death Tax from coming back from the grave.
"Before it was phased out, Americans had the displeasure of paying the IRS for the act of dying. Make no mistake, we are taxed to death during our lifetimes - income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, the list goes on," said Dr. Paul this morning.
"Every single dime you have when you die has already been taxed at least once and probably more. To then subject your death to an additional tax is wrong, Jack Conway and President Obama’s plan is wrong, and I won’t stand for it."
The Death Tax disproportionately harms small businesses and farmers, since the tax isn’t just on your savings, but also on any business and property you are trying to pass along to your family.
The Death Tax leads to businesses being sold, farms being lost and jobs going away. Millions of dollars in entrepreneurial capital is instead sent to the government. In these tough times, we should not be raising taxes. And, we certainly should not be increasing them on the small businesses that create jobs.
"President Obama and Jack Conway are just wrong. We should not be raising taxes on anyone, especially during a recession. And, we shouldn’t be trying to decide what rate the Death Tax should be, we should instead be keeping it where it is - zero."
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Earlier this year, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi conspired to ram through their national healthcare scheme, forcing Americans into a trillion dollar government-controlled system. Jack Conway, instead of joining with other Attorneys General to fight for Kentucky’s rights, instead embraced their government mandates.
Now, President Obama is making another extreme move in the realm of healthcare - and Jack Conway is nowhere to be found. So once again we ask, Where is Jack?
Here's just a taste of the extreme views of the new nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Don Berwick:
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."
And that’s just a start. Some other eye-popping stances from Don Berwick:
"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." June 2009
"I am romantic about the (British) National Health Service. I love it." He also called this socialized system an "example to the whole world."This is the man who will be in charge of a system that spends nearly one TRILLION dollars a year on healthcare.
Of course these views match very well with those of President Obama, who said: "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here….There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."
President Obama can deny it all he wants - the fact is, he has pushed through a plan that leads to socialized medicine, rationed care and exploding spending and deficits. And now he is pushing forward his nominee to further those aims.
Our government has no business being in charge of health care. And it certainly has no business deciding who gets care and who doesn’t. Those systems have failed in other countries, and they will fail here if allowed to be implemented.
That’s why Rand Paul supports repeal of Obamacare, and would oppose the nomination of Don Berwick in the Senate. He is another nominee, another extremist who seeks to "redistribute" wealth and force tax increases to pay for "free" healthcare.
To make matters worse, this nominee is being placed into office by "recess appointment", a power given to the President to put someone in an office without Senate confirmation. Recess appointments have been used recently to put extremists in office who could never pass the constitutionally-required advise and consent of the Senate.
The Senate has not held a single hearing on this nominee. No questions have been asked. No reports given. No debate has taken place. Yet, President Obama has decided that the Republicans in the Senate would not pass the nomination. This is a typical spin from the White House, posture, bluster, blame, then sneak your plan through. Unfortunately for them, the facts are not on their side. This is simply an end-around the process, and should be condemned by both sides of the aisle.
|Rand Paul||President Obama||Jack Conway|
|Opposed Obamacare||Obviously pushed Obamacare||Sided with Obama and against 65% of Kentuckians who oppose it|
|Opposes trillion dollars in new spending||Proposed trillion dollars in new spending|
Supported trillion dollar new spending
|Opposes government rationing||Appointed nominee who supports rationing||???|
|Opposes socialized medicine||Pushing country toward socialized medicine||???|
|Supports Repeal of Obamacare||Will fight against repeal||???|
|Opposes nominee to implement Obamacare||Appointed extremist nominee in favor of Rationing care and socialized medicine||???|
This issue is current matter for the U.S. Senate. Once again, Rand Paul will take clear, full, principled stands so you’ll know what he’ll do as your next Senator. Where is Jack??
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
“As if shoving a trillion dollar government takeover of health care down the throat of a disapproving American public wasn't enough, apparently the Obama Administration intends to arrogantly circumvent the American people yet again by recess appointing one of the most prominent advocates of rationed health care to implement their national plan.
“Democrats haven't scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this Administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny.
“Just over three months after passage of this misguided law, with Americans' worst fears about it being realized every day, the fact that this Administration won't allow the man charged with implementing the President's plan to cut $500 billion out of Medicare to testify about his plans for the care of our nation's seniors is truly outrageous.”
"Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders. If the President wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do so by taking amnesty off the table and focus his efforts on border and interior security.
The same old political deals won't work. In the 1980's we were told, give us amnesty this one time and we'll secure the borders. We gave the amnesty, but our borders are not secure.
This is a matter of national security, economic survival, and basic fairness.
The illegal immigration problem clearly will not be solved by the same old politicians who talk without saying anything. That's why Rand Paul proposes a bold three-prong plan that takes the problem of illegal immigration head on.
1. Secure the Border: We must build a fence across our southern border. It can be a physical fence, or an electronic fence or a combination. I believe the reality is the electronic fence will work better and be cheaper. But I will vote for any method to put a real obstacle at our border.
We should increase our border patrol, and add multiple helicopter stations. We should move some of our unneeded foreign military bases to our borders. And we should have a zero tolerance policy for human trafficking.
2. End the Welfare State for Illegal Immigrants. Milton Friedman famously said you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. We have both right now. That's why I propose a ban on all taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants. There are cities near our borders where illegal immigrants literally cross our borders simply to go to our schools and hospitals. This travesty is wrong and must be stopped.
3. End "Anchor Babies." The 14th amendment, granting citizenship to those born here, was never meant for those whose parents were here illegally. It is a gross distortion of the original intent. I propose we fix this legislatively, and if necessary, by Constitutional amendment. The fact is, regardless of irresponsible news reports on this mater, this is NOT settled law, and the only case that addresses the issue of birthright citizenship, "United States v. Wong Kim Ark", was a case regarding children of LEGAL immigrants.
Kentuckians know that we need real and swift action to end illegal immigration. And, there is a real choice when it comes to tackling this problem.
|Rand Paul||President Obama||Jack Conway|
|Will vote for fence and will secure borders||No border fence funding||???|
|End Illegal Immigrant welfare state||Continue illegal immigrant welfare||???|
|Fight to end automatic citizenship for children of illegals||Will continue anchor babies||???|
You've heard Dr. Paul’s positions. You've heard the President talk, but he refuses to say or do anything of substance. And you've heard even less from Jack Conway on how he would solve this problem. I invite Jack to join the national discussion on this issue and say if he stands with the inaction, amnesty and welfare state for illegals like his national party.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Teach, I pray thee, my hands to war, and my fingers to fight in the defense of America, and the rights and liberties of it! Impress upon my mind a true sense of my duty, and the obligation I am under to my country! … but may I live to do further service to my country—to the church and the people of God, and interest of Jesus Christ, and see peace and tranquility restored to this land…
Hear me, O my God, and accept of those my petitions through Jesus Christ, to whom with thee, O Father, and the Holy Spirit, one God, be glory, honor and praise, forever and ever. AMEN.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
As the Declaration’s parchment has yellowed with age, America has become a rich nation whose ideals and economy have been the envy of the world. We have faced down many enemies at home and abroad.
But one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today doesn’t come from without, but from within. And I’m talking about our national debt.
Wisely, the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, warned of this danger early on. As he once said, “There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as public debt. It will bring us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this Army and Navy are to protect us.”
As usual, Jefferson was right.
At a time when Americans are clipping coupons and pinching pennies, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to spend money that they – we – do not have.
Three weeks ago, America’s national debt topped $13 trillion. And let me say that one more time: $13 trillion is owed by the United States of America today. That number is so big it’s difficult to comprehend.
If you take that $13 trillion and divide it by the number of Americans, that’s $42,000 for every person in this country.
The national debt has risen by $2.4 trillion in the 500 days since President Obama took office. That’s an average of nearly $5 billion per day.
Even though we have to borrow 43 cents of every dollar we spend and the debt is set to double in five years, Congress and this White House still continue to splurge.
More than half of the $9 trillion in debt America will accrue in the next decade will be from interest alone. That money could be better used on national defense or returned to taxpayers.
And with much of America’s debt being held by other nations – such as China – our national debt is also a national security issue. No less than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, said last month, “I actually believe that the biggest national security threat we have is our national debt.”